Dane et al v. Department of Family and Protective Services et al, No. 6:2020cv00051 - Document 3 (S.D. Tex. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER This action is dismissed without prejudice.(Signed by Judge Drew B Tipton) Parties notified.(KelliePapaioannou, 2)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dane et al v. Department of Family and Protective Services et al Doc. 3 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SO U TH ERN D ISTR ICT O F TEX AS V IC TO R IA D IW SIO N September 29, 2020 David J. Bradley, Clerk R O BERT DA N E,JR .,and SA M AN TH A SH AN N O N G O N ZA LES, Plaintiffs, V. C1vIL ACTION NO.6:20-cv-51 D EPM W M EN T O F FA M ILY AN D PR O TECTIV E SERV ICE S and 24TH D ISTRICT CO U R T O F W CTO R IA , CO UN TY ,TEX AS, Defendants. M EM O R AN D U M O PIN ION & O RD ER Plaintiffs R obert D ane, Jr., and Snm antha Shnnnon G onzales filed this Civil A ction against Defendants Department of Family and Protective Selwices (GtDFPS'') and the 24th DistrictCourtofVictodaCotmty,Texas,(the$:24th DistrictCourf'lalleging violationsoftheir rights to due process,to be free 9om illegalsearches and seizures,and to instillreligious values totheirdaughter.(D1ct.No.1).Previously,M agistrate Judge Jason B.Libby granted Plaintiffs' Application to Proceed in D istrid Cotu't W ithout Repaying Fees or Costs and held that,tm less othem ise ordered,mlm m ons shallnot be issued until a f' rivolity review pursuant to 28 U .S.C. 5 1915(e)(2)hasbeen completed.(6:20-mc-5,Dlct.No.2).Afterreviewing the Complaint,the record, and the applicable law , the Cotlrt is of the opinion that this action should be DISM ISSED . B A CK G R O UN D . Plaintiffs' Com plaint and the attached .exhibits are not exactly a m odel of cladty. N evertheless,the Courtconstnzes the follow ing allegations from the papers.Plaintiffs allege that onAugust20,2019,DFPS rem oved theirnewborn daughterfrom theircustody afteram econium Dockets.Justia.com snmpletaken in the hospitaltested positive fordrugs.l(Dkt.No.1-1 at5).Seeldng to regain custody,Plaintiffs filed Cause No. 19-08-84865-A in the 24th District Courtwith Judge Jack M an'(lvudge Man'')presiding.(Dk1.No.1 at 1).Judge M arrderlied Plaintiffs'petition to represent them selves and appointed counsel. 1d. Subsequently, Judge M arr denied Plaintiffs attemptto firethatcounsel.1d.Theirattorney ultim ately requested to withdraw Gtafterreceiving a copy ofa complaintPlaintiffsqfiled with the Texas State BarAssociation and the Chiefof D isciplinary Council.'' 1d. Judge M arr also failed to set hemings on m ultiple occasions conceming Plaintiffs'filingsthatwere apparently ignored and rejected becausethey had been appointed legalcounsel.1d Due to these circum stances,Plaintiffs conclude that Judge M an.w as biased and had a conflictofinterest.Id at2.Itisunclearwhattheholding in thisaction wasand whether the 24th District Courtterminated Plaintiffs'parentalrights.Plaintiffs state that they havebeenEGstrippedofgtheirlright''toraisetheirdaughter.1d. On July 28,2020,Plaintiffsfiled a motion to filesuitand proceed informapauperis, which wasgranted by M agistrate JudgeLibby.(6:20-mc-5,Dkt.No.1-2).The Clerk ofCourt thenfiledtheComplaintthereby initiatingtheinstantaction.(Dkt.No.1).An irlitialpretrialand schedulingcorlferenceisscheduledonOctober9,2020.(Dkt.No.2). L EG A L STA N DA R D Plaintiffs filed this action pursuantto 28 U.S.C.j 1915,which permits an indigent litigant to com m ence arl action in federal courtw ithout prepaying the adm inistrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit.To protect against possible abuses of tllis privilege,the statm e allow s a district courtto dism iss the case upon a finding that an action is frivolous,m alicious, fails to state a claim upon w hich reliefcan be granted,or seeks m onetary relieffrom a defendant 1.Although there aretwo nam ed plaintiffsin the instantsuit,the Com plaint is writlen in singulartlrstperson.ItisunclearifPlaintifflkobertD ane,Jr.,orPlaintiffSam anthaShannon Gonzalezistheplaintiffreferredto irlthenarrative.Theattachedexhibitsdoshow letterswritten intheflrst-personsignedonly by PlaintiffDane. immune9om such relief.See28U.S.C.j 1915(e)(2)(B);accordNewsomev.f.S.O.C.,301F.3d 227,231(5th Cir.2002)(percuriam). A finding offrivolity can bem ade wherethe complaintlacks an arguablebasiseitherin 1aw orin fact.Denton v.Hernandez,504U.S.25,31(1992).A claim hasno arguablebasisin 1aw ifitisbased on an indisputably meritlesslegaltheory,'ssuch asifthe com plaintallegesthe violation of a legalinterest w hich clearly does not exist.''D avis v.Scott, 157 F.3d 1003, 1005 (5th Cir.1998).Such a claim may be dismissed sua sponte.SeeNeitzkev.Williams,490U.S. 319,327(1989);Allisonv.Kyle,66F.3d71,73(5thCir.1995). A complaintfailsto statea claim upon which reliefm ay be granted when itfailsto plead (tenough factsto state a claim to reliefthatisplausible on itsface.''BellAtl.Corp.v.Twombly, 550 U.S.544,570 (2007);Ashcro. jtv.lqbal,556 U.S.662,678 (2009).(&A claim has facial plausibility when theplaintiffpleadsfactualcontentthatallowsthe courtto draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the m isconduct alleged.'' Iqbal, 556 U .S. at 678. Es-l-hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by m ere conclusory statem ents, do not suffice.''1d GtD ism issal. ..is appropriate w here the plaintiff fails to allege Eenough factsto state a claim thatisplausible on its face'and thus doesnot Graise a rightto relief above the speculative 1evel.'''M ontoya v.FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.,614 F.3d 145, 148(5thCir.2010)(quoting Twombly,550U.S.at555,570). Pro se com plaints are held to a less stringentstandard than those drafted by attom eys. Sevierv.Abbott,No.C-06-042,2016U.S.Dist.LEXIS 198715,at*3(S.D.Tex.M ay 13,2016) (citing Gordonv.Leeke,574F.2d 1147,1151(4thCir.1978$.A federaldistrictcourtischarged w ith liberally constnzing a com plaint filed by a pro se litigant to allow the developm ent of a potentially meritoriouscase.Erickson v.Pardus,551U.S.89,94 (2007).In evaluating aprose complaint,theplaintiffsallegations are assumed to betrue,tmlessthey aze clearly irrationalor wholly incredible.Denton v.Hernandez,504 U.S.25,33 (1992).However,thisrequirement does not m ean that the courtcan ignore a clear faillzre in the pleadings to allege facts that set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federaldistrictcourt.Sevier, 2016 U .S.Dist.LEM S 198715,at*4(citingWellerv.Dep'fofsoc.Servs.,901F.2d387,390-91(4thCir.1990:. A NA LY SIS Plaintiffs allege the following:(1) DFPS violated their right to be free from illegal searchesand seizuresby taking theirdaughterwithnoexigentcircllmstances(Dk4.No.1at2), ' (2)the24th DistrictCourtviolatedtheirrighttodueprocesswhenJudgeM arrappointedcotmsel againstPlaintiffs'desire to representthem selves,refused to allow Plaintiffsto relieve appointed cotmsel,failedto sethearingson multipleoccasionsand rejectedpro sefilingsbecausecotmsel hadbeenappointed,mld failedtorecusehimselfdueto aclearcontlictofinterest(1d.at1).;and (3)the 24th DistrictCout'tviolated their ççliberty interest''to instillreligious beliefs in their daughter(1d at3).Upon reviewingthepleadings,theCourtfindsthatPlaintiffs'claimsshould be dism issed forfailure to state a claim and forfrivolity. Plaintiffs'claim againstD FPS fails because they have notstated enough facts to allege a violation oftheirrightagainstillegalsearchesand seiztlres.Plaintiffssolely statethe conclusozy allegation that D FPS <Gviolated w hile acting tm der color of 1aw through representative N icole Carver,mydaughterEnameredactedqandmyselfourTexasconstimtionally protectedrighttobe free ofillegalsearch and seizure.''(Dld.No.1at2).Even ifthe Courtwere to construe tlzis statementasPlaintiffs'attempttopursueacivilaction under28U.S.C.j 1983forviolationsof their Fourteenth A m endm ent rights,they stillfail to plead specific facts to plausibly state this claim . 4 Plaintiffs'claim s against the 24th District Courtlikewise fail because Judge M arr is entitled to judicialimmunity.Judges are immune to monetary damages while acting in the performance oftheirjudicial duties.See Nixon v.Fitzgerald,457 U.S.731,745-46 (1982). Judgesare immtmef' rom suitfordnmagesresulting from any judicialact,unlesspedbrmed in (Ethe clear absence ofa11jtzrisdiction.''M ireles v.Waco,502 U.S.9,11-12 (1991);Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S.349,356-57 (1978);Young v.Biggers,938 F.2d 565,569 n.5 (5th Cir. 1991).Allegationsofbadfaith ormalicedonotovercomejudicialimmdlnity.Mireles,502U.S. at11.Gsl-he factthatitisalleged thatthejudge acted pursuantto a conspiracy and committed grave procedural errors is not sufficient to avoid absolute judicial immunity.''Mitchellv. McBryde,944 F.2d 229,230 (5th Cir.1991).Here,Plaintiffs allege no factsthatwould even suggestthatJudge M at'racted withoutjurisdiction.Plaintiffsare essentially trying to hold the 24th District Courtliable for its performance ofjudicial acts.Thus,their claims lack any arguablebasisin 1aw andfactgiven the24thDistrictCourt'sabsolutejudicialimmunity. Finally,Plaintiffs do notseek any legalrelieffrom the Court- m onetary orotherwisebutm erely allege thattheirrightshave been violated. CO N C LU SIO N Forthe foregoing reasons,tllis action is dismissed withoutprejudice ptlrsuant to 28 U.S.C.j 1915(e)(2)(B). ltis SO O RD ER ED . Signed this28th day of Septem ber,2020. h, D REW B .TI ON U NITED STA TES DISTR ICT JUD G E
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
